[Pragmatic_View]

So are you saying that ALL presidents violated the Constitution?

There was no law against spying on people in the US until the law passed by Congress as a knee jerk reaction to the Nixon scandal.

My point was exactly that this law has nothing to do with the Constitution and the Constitution was never interpreted as prohibiting the President from spying on our enemies, foreign and domestic. So why is it a big deal now, when in fact the only way we can find out and prevent terror attack, is by spying on terrorists inside the US.

[ndt]

"There was no law against spying on people in the US until the law passed by Congress as a knee jerk reaction to the Nixon scandal."

Incorrect, it is covered by the fourth amendment. The was question at one time whether or not it applied, but that has been settled by a number of cases, the first that pops to mind is Katz v. United States.

"So why is it a big deal now, when in fact the only way we can find out and prevent terror attack, is by spying on terrorists inside the US."

My beef is that Bush had a secret court system and a retroactive warrant system in place already. By bypassing this already flexible system, he has opened himself to these attacks and threatened the success of the entire process.

As for the "spying on terrorists" the problem is only in regards to U.S. Persons (this is a specific thing). These people, unlike foreigners, are entitled to all the protections of the constitution, including the forth amendment and the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.